So then why are members of your party so vehemently against doing that with Iran, as the Obama administration has been doing? You can't have it both ways man...
Why would you want a president to make a deal with a nation harboring terrorists? A nation that is hellbent on making Weapons of Mass Destruction (if they dont already have some)? And lastly, a nation that captures and embarrasses US soldiers?
how do we make a deal and be diplomatic with someone saying this
New comments from Iran's supreme leader are giving new fuel to the deal's opponents. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the U.S. - yet again - the Great Satan and said Israel will not exist in 25 years.
At least going online suggests obama acceptance is at around 47% which is not too bad considering everything. Of course, that can vary with time... I do think obama will ultimately be remembered positively.
As far as obama being the reason the US does not get respect from other countries... what does that even mean? Obama has gotten the US a significant amount of good will and even actual respect. What dragged US respect and good name through the ground was good old gearge bush. The guy got most of the free world to absolutely hate the US (except israel I think, they loved him). Obama effectively improved the image and good name of the US internationally (funny enough, except with israel). Well, that or I don't know what people mean by respect for the US in this context.
Either this is false or the whiners yell so loudly that they muffle out the voices of those who support Obama. I'd be legit shocked if Obama acceptance is over 25%, and I'm being generous here.
That's what I'm saying, but republicans like lying and talking out of their asses to appeal to their voter bases. Has there been any republican debate where Obama wasn't brought up and/or criticized? Cheap way to get support.
Yes, presidential wise, Bush actually made the country look bad, while overall the citizens are doing the most damage to US's image by criticizing good things Obama are doing. I don't think Obama was as effective because people criticize him for his war crimes and high casualties. now, republicans are praising Bush and defending him while criticizing Obama, even though Bush is the cause of 95% of the problems in the country. At least under Obama, gas prices have gotten pretty low, and we managed to kill bin Laden.
He has harmed the image of the country, no one fears our military because they think its weak, other countries criticize US for not providing aid or home to fleeting refugees, he leaves wars unfinished causing embarrassing failures to be left around the world (afghanistan, Iraq), police violence and violent acts have increased under his reign that other country leaders criticize him, his foreign policy is a failure and laughable easily criticized by other country leaders.
Interestingly, I hear the exact opposite from non-Americans. US is pretty powerful, and a lot of people resent Obama for approving the use of drones that's done a lot of damage to their homes. And I'm pretty sure more leaders have criticized Bush than Obama. Obama hasn't made US look weak at all and has actually caused people to fear our military and power.
I don't know about the leaders, but no citizens I have seen has criticized Obama for the police violence and violent acts. They in fact blame the officers and citizens for that, especially the republicans, NRA, and gun lovers because they're the ones who want complete freedom of gun ownership. I would not be shocked if the leaders of other countries also saw the citizens and police officers as the source of problems in the country instead of Obama. I think only deluded people blame Obama for the increased violence in the country, especially when he's trying to reduce it.
Also did the British people actually debate Trump being banned from their country today? That seems rude as they would, if he were elected, have to still deal with him on a foreign policy standpoint. The US has a long history with Britain, so...it seems impossible to actually ban him.
I don't see how it's rude to want to ban a racist, sexist piece of garbage from their country. Are we rude to have banned Osama bin Laden and wanted him dead? Are we rude to want to ban the ISIS? Actually, Trump banning Muslims from entering the country is far more rude, especially when there has been little to no terrorist attack upon our soil.
Thats harsh for Trump and then on evening news here they are laughing cause he said "Two Corinthians" instead of "Second Corinthians" when he spoke at Liberty University (an major evangelical christian university in America).
-
Well Im not an expert on Europe relations which is why I come here to see how our country is viewed in Europe.
Obviously you're not an expert, otherwise you'd know Obama is viewed favorably in Europe while Americans are seen in a bad light. Or that majority of Europeans make fun of us insensitively for our love of guns and refusal to do anything to curb the violence or make sure officers get punished.
I don't see how it's rude to want to ban a racist, sexist piece of garbage from their country. Are we rude to have banned Osama bin Laden and wanted him dead? Are we rude to want to ban the ISIS?
Well, but what does that have to do with my question? I am aware that democrats aren't center left and if anything almost literally everywhere else in the world they would be a right wing party. My question however was why exactly would anyone, regardless of their level of insanity, think Obama has done something to harm the image of the US worldwide or that somehow bush gave the US a good image in the international community...
I don't know how familiar you are with US politics, so I included the tidbit about the political spectrum. More importantly, I answered your question with my last paragraph. I also now know the source of your confusion, which I have bolded. The fact that people are making such statements is because they are insane. You cannot separate the two as you are attempting to do. The vast bulk of people who make such claims are Republicans, who actually believe what they are saying.
Due to the two-party system, one party might become more centrist during anti-liberal times in order to attract more voters, and another might become more extreme in order to do the same thing. I think his point is it's a push and a pull in order to keep the parties afloat. But I don't think that the current environment in the Republican party is tenable. We saw the fissure in the party during the emergence of the Tea Party. I wouldn't expect that sort of thing to go away.
There is a push and pull dynamic between the two parties. When a Democrat is in office, the public, as a whole, tends to become more conservatish. When a Republican is in office, on the other hand, the public becomes more liberalish.
That isn't my point, however. There are people within the Democratic Party who are staunchly opposed to President Obama, but the bulk of his opposition opposes Obama's policies, not Obama per se. With Republicans, it is a different matter altogether. Not only do they attack his policies (even when they supported them, like the individual mandate), they also personally attack the president's character. Their level of obstruction is abnormal by historical standards, such as how often they filibuster Obama's presidential nominees. And this isn't including other problems endemic among Republicans such as the Fox News Bubble that has captured both the voters and the establishment.
On one hand, I find it very entertaining with how Republican presidential nominees, for example, prey upon the racial and economic anxieties of the Republican base. On the other hand, I find it irritating because it's next to impossible to get anything done when we have one political party that is ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of factors, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of their political opposition.
Why would you want a president to make a deal with a nation harboring terrorists? A nation that is hellbent on making Weapons of Mass Destruction (if they dont already have some)? And lastly, a nation that captures and embarrasses US soldiers?
how do we make a deal and be diplomatic with someone saying this
You'll find a lot of things in foreign policy don't make sense. Why do we support Saudi Arabia, the country where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from and secretly funds terrorist groups? Why do we support Israel, our "wonderful" ally who is the top spy threat to the US? Why do countries do business with the US despite the tendency of the US to meddle in the internal affairs of both our allies and enemies? So and so forth. The only answer I've heard that adequately deals with all these dilemmas is this: "Because we can."
That isn't my point, however. There are people within the Democratic Party who are staunchly opposed to President Obama, but the bulk of his opposition opposes Obama's policies, not Obama per se. With Republicans, it is a different matter altogether. Not only do they attack his policies (even when they supported them, like the individual mandate), they also personally attack the president's character. Their level of obstruction is abnormal by historical standards, such as how often they filibuster Obama's presidential nominees. And this isn't including other problems endemic among Republicans such as the Fox News Bubble that has captured both the voters and the establishment.
Ah, no...I'm not naive there. I understand perfectly why the guy has received so much opposition, and I think it's obvious it isn't based on merit either.
Why would you want a president to make a deal with a nation harboring terrorists? A nation that is hellbent on making Weapons of Mass Destruction (if they dont already have some)? And lastly, a nation that captures and embarrasses US soldiers?
how do we make a deal and be diplomatic with someone saying this
Well, look at it this way... Isn't a nation harboring terrorist exactly the sort of nation with whom you'd want to make a deal, specially if it can help stop them from developing a nuclear bomb? As far as I can tell the deal implies iran giving unrestricted access to their facilities and suspected areas... In context the deal is successful in two scenarios (at least as far as I can tell): The first would be that iran does as they claim they will. The second one would be when iran breaks the deal (which doesn't necessarily imply they built the bomb, just that they continued to try making it), they get caught and sanctions get reinstated. Which takes everything back to square one. The only case in which this fails is if iran works on a bomb or builds the bomb and the regular inspections don't catch them.
Realistically speaking, you wouldn't need a deal with a nation that is not antagonistic towards the US.
Well, look at it this way... Isn't a nation harboring terrorist exactly the sort of nation with whom you'd want to make a deal, specially if it can help stop them from developing a nuclear bomb? As far as I can tell the deal implies iran giving unrestricted access to their facilities and suspected areas... In context the deal is successful in two scenarios (at least as far as I can tell): The first would be that iran does as they claim they will. The second one would be when iran breaks the deal (which doesn't necessarily imply they built the bomb, just that they continued to try making it), they get caught and sanctions get reinstated. Which takes everything back to square one. The only case in which this fails is if iran works on a bomb or builds the bomb and the regular inspections don't catch them.
Realistically speaking, you wouldn't need a deal with a nation that is not antagonistic towards the US.
Why make a deal with terrorists and nations harboring them? Terrorism is the greatest threat to our homeland. We should be bombing invading and taking over/dismantling ourselves.
Whose to say they wont build bombs right under our noses...
Why make a deal with terrorists and nations harboring them? Terrorism is the greatest threat to our homeland. We should be bombing invading and taking over/dismantling ourselves.
Whose to say they wont build bombs right under our noses...
Ahh, yes, I forgot the US has an excellent history of bombing places and fulfilling their objectives. Remember how awesome it was when iraq's WMDs were finally found and dismantled? The US has been so free and safe since then.... I also hear excellent things about lybia nowadays as well. They say that if you ignore the ongoing civil war the sights are just amazing....
That's the actual point of the deal. With the deal they have to give access to their every facility along with suspected facility that could produce enriched uranium. How is that not better than not having it? The worst case scenario is returning to where things were.....
I got my absentee ballot for the Republican Primary in Virginia today (in VA you can select which one to vote in (but only one), but it comes with an additional form you have to sign and print your name on to say that you belong to that party)). Sad that it had to come with a green sheet saying Lindsay Graham is no longer in the running. Wonder if anymore dropouts happen by March 1.
Why make a deal with terrorists and nations harboring them? Terrorism is the greatest threat to our homeland. We should be bombing invading and taking over/dismantling ourselves.
Whose to say they wont build bombs right under our noses...
So we should be bombing the US too because the country also harbors terrorists, whether black, white, or ISIS-sympathizers. Terrorism isn't the greatest threat to the country, ignorant Americans are. Again, most attempts at terrorism are being thwarted successfully (with the exceptions of terrorism committed by white people), so instead of focusing on that, we have to focus on people shooting other people and the level of ignorance that has gotten Trump and Cruz support.
eww, Palin is one of the worst. She's probably the main reason why McCain lost, although I'm not too fussed about it given what Obama was able to accomplish, despite his faults. I hope Trump chooses her, actually, she'll probably lose him a lot of supporters. But Palin supporting Trump just further proves what a horrible person she is, along with her kids. Her son got in trouble for domestic violence, apparently. I wonder if the politicians and candidate would have pointed out Palin being a failure as a mom, thus unfit to be president, given her daughter has gotten knocked up twice, and now her son has been abusing his girlfriend.
Palin probably knows she'd have lost. Also would have loved to see Nailing Paylin be brought up just to see her reaction.
So we should be bombing the US too because the country also harbors terrorists, whether black, white, or ISIS-sympathizers. Terrorism isn't the greatest threat to the country, ignorant Americans are. Again, most attempts at terrorism are being thwarted successfully (with the exceptions of terrorism committed by white people), so instead of focusing on that, we have to focus on people shooting other people and the level of ignorance that has gotten Trump and Cruz support.
eww, Palin is one of the worst. She's probably the main reason why McCain lost, although I'm not too fussed about it given what Obama was able to accomplish, despite his faults. I hope Trump chooses her, actually, she'll probably lose him a lot of supporters. But Palin supporting Trump just further proves what a horrible person she is, along with her kids. Her son got in trouble for domestic violence, apparently. I wonder if the politicians and candidate would have pointed out Palin being a failure as a mom, thus unfit to be president, given her daughter has gotten knocked up twice, and now her son has been abusing his girlfriend.
Palin probably knows she'd have lost. Also would have loved to see Nailing Paylin be brought up just to see her reaction.
Foreign terrorism is the biggest threat. Do you really want to live in a country in which your safety isnt assured because there could be a terrorist plot right below your very eyes? Selecting a democratic candidate who doesnt believe terrorism and immigration are key issues will cause such a plot to be commonplace in our country. We and several of the republicans already have solutions for addressing terrorism issues here proposed by candidates, remove immigrants who are here illegally, temporarily ban people from coming into the company from key areas. As long as terrorirsts countries are being bombed they would have decreased or non existent capacity to try to get new people to their side.
Im glad strategists are finding ways to knock out the Trump hype.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Foreign terrorism is the biggest threat. Do you really want to live in a country in which your safety isnt assured because there could be a terrorist plot right below your very eyes? Selecting a democratic candidate who doesnt believe terrorism and immigration are key issues will cause such a plot to be commonplace in our country. We and several of the republicans already have solutions for addressing terrorism issues here proposed by candidates, remove immigrants who are here illegally, temporarily ban people from coming into the company from key areas. As long as terrorirsts countries are being bombed they would have decreased or non existent capacity to try to get new people to their side.
No it's not. Again, show me proof that we have had terrorist attack from foreign people on our soil. As long as our law enforcement workers do their job, that is one thing we never have to worry about. I know my safety isn't assured because of racists. I fear if I go near a mosque, a white supremacist will kill me because he'll think I'm a Muslim. I'm scared that if I'm inside a temple to drop my mom off, a bunch of white terrorists will come in and shoot us just because they think we're Arabs or Muslims, just as two gurudwaras years ago saw attacks from white supremacists, and just as Dylann Roof attacked a black church. I'm scared a white mass shooter will pop up at work because he wants to be famous for five minutes. I'm scared an officer will jail me or kill me for no reason whenever I'm driving and see a cop car. These things scare me more than attacks from foreigners mainly because these events happen more often than terrorist attacks on our soil.
No it won't. That's just silly fear mongering appealed to people who don't know any better. Several of the republicans' solutions are dumb and only cause more problems. What's to stop a terrorist from sneakin to Canada or Mexico and getting into the country illegally? Vetting them as refugees keep us safe because we don't allow anyone remotely suspicious into the country, we send them back after months of background checks. More would-be terrorists have come from our own soil than from foreign countries, if the media's reports are to be believed.
I'd rather the country focuses on itself and its gun issues than on terrorism, given the people who deal with such things are doing a good job.
There hasn't been a single terrorist attack commited in the US since 9/11 that involved non nationals. There have been more deaths by local racists, white supremacists than by jihadists... both seem to be on the rise though. But even then, the numbers of either aren't particularly high. I don't think either is even significant enough to even show up in a violence statistic (unless the statistic is about these specifically).
I'm not sure if there's any point in posting links. If republican voters actually believed in facts and fact checking, then none of the current republican candidate would get much votes. This is based on my experience with the republicans I know though.
I'm not sure if there's any point in posting links. If republican voters actually believed in facts and fact checking, then none of the current republican candidate would get much votes. This is based on my experience with the republicans I know though.
There hasn't been a single terrorist attack commited in the US since 9/11 that involved non nationals. There have been more deaths by local racists, white supremacists than by jihadists... both seem to be on the rise though. But even then, the numbers of either aren't particularly high. I don't think either is even significant enough to even show up in a violence statistic (unless the statistic is about these specifically).
Just because there hasnt been one since 2001 doesnt mean there wouldnt be one, people were saying no one had attacked the US before, then Pearl Harbor happened, so it appears that we need to be vigilant before attacks on our homeland happen again.
Taking an approach that we need to be lax on security and military pursuits as the protector of the world is as bad as the stuff Mr Sanders says. Focus only on America and we may find ourselves in a situation we cant get out of.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Why are democrats suddenly against Ms Clinton. I dont understand what happened between a few weeks ago and now.
Republicans will see actual facts, and if they don't agree with it they'll just say it's liberal trash or biased towards liberals. And in the meanwhile, citing biased and/or inaccurate sources. If republican voters had bothered to fact check, they would know US's vetting process for refugees is stringent, and that there'd be no reason to worry about any terrorist getting through. If they had bothered to fact check, they would not be scared of attacks from foreign terrorists because again, there has been none because they all have been foiled. If republicans actually cared about facts instead of what agreed with them, they'd know that the danger comes from people born in the US, and that white supremacists tend to be the worse terrorists in the country.
Wasn't Bush, a republican, informed that 9/11 may happen? Yet he did nothing about it. After that, we've been vigilant to the point that we stopped countless of terrorist attacks, as I have said before. What more do you want, the government to install bugs in every home and arrest any minority who even types "bomb" innocently? We need to stop butting into the affairs of other countries and focus on ourselves. Didn't our interference ultimately create ISIS and Al-Quaeda? Didn't Iran take some of our guys as hostages during the Olympics, which made Reagan do behind-closed-doors deal to get them back? Didn't us stopping aid to Japan cause them to bomb Pearl Harbor?
If anything, we should force other countries to stringently vet refugees, and show them how to do it, and show them ways to stop or prevent terrorist attacks.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I find it very interesting, Sharkbait, that you criticized Bernie and Hillary for "cannibalizing" each other but have not even commented on the republicans doing the same, from Bush vs. Trump and Cruz vs. Rubio, I think.
But it's predictable that republicans would use the candidates they're supporting as sources, despite the candidates lying, misinforming, or fear mongering. I can't take any criticism on Obama from them seriously because they're likely just lies. It's sad how these candidates have to resort to lying and attacking Obama for support and cheers.
Just because there hasnt been one since 2001 doesnt mean there wouldnt be one, people were saying no one had attacked the US before, then Pearl Harbor happened, so it appears that we need to be vigilant before attacks on our homeland happen again.
Taking an approach that we need to be lax on security and military pursuits as the protector of the world is as bad as the stuff Mr Sanders says. Focus only on America and we may find ourselves in a situation we cant get out of.
No one is saying they shoudn't be vigilant. However, is there any reason to think that the US is being incompetent or has otherwise neglected security on this from? Maybe I am mistaken but as far as I understand it is not the military that stops terrorist plots at the US but rather intelligence agencies which are already pretty huge organizations. Has sanders suggested being lax on security? That doesn't seem right. If anything it sounds like political suicide. At most I think he suggests a less intrusive approach to international affairs but that is something dramatically different from being lax...
Republicans will see actual facts, and if they don't agree with it they'll just say it's liberal trash or biased towards liberals. And in the meanwhile, citing biased and/or inaccurate sources. If republican voters had bothered to fact check, they would know US's vetting process for refugees is stringent, and that there'd be no reason to worry about any terrorist getting through. If they had bothered to fact check, they would not be scared of attacks from foreign terrorists because again, there has been none because they all have been foiled. If republicans actually cared about facts instead of what agreed with them, they'd know that the danger comes from people born in the US, and that white supremacists tend to be the worse terrorists in the country.
Wasn't Bush, a republican, informed that 9/11 may happen? Yet he did nothing about it. After that, we've been vigilant to the point that we stopped countless of terrorist attacks, as I have said before. What more do you want, the government to install bugs in every home and arrest any minority who even types "bomb" innocently? We need to stop butting into the affairs of other countries and focus on ourselves. Didn't our interference ultimately create ISIS and Al-Quaeda? Didn't Iran take some of our guys as hostages during the Olympics, which made Reagan do behind-closed-doors deal to get them back? Didn't us stopping aid to Japan cause them to bomb Pearl Harbor?
If anything, we should force other countries to stringently vet refugees, and show them how to do it, and show them ways to stop or prevent terrorist attacks.
Why allow refugees? I like the idea of closing the borders more and blocking group of individuals with a higher propensity to be terrorists. Until that religion takes care of its terrorist teachings then we shouldn't allow its believers into the nation. There are many other nations in the world, Europe seems more than capable of hosting these people, so they don't necessarily need us Americans to house these people. I think its a fair thing if we as a country are the ones to be the attackers of these terrorist nations, while the other countries with vastly inferior military's do the work of helping people fleeing these nations give them a place to stay and what not.
I think the government ought to do that and more to find ways to snuff out people who were influenced by terrorist teachings in America. Maybe initiate a national registry for people in that religion, have watches at their gatherings for these religions, and monitor their online conversations, like the recent person in that religion who is training our future leaders of America with these bad thoughts and ideals http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/20/fbi-investigating-kent-state-professor-for-ties-to-isis.html (watch the video) Is this the America you want? More surveillance, more tools for intelligence agencies is needed.
In my readers, there was enough to justify the attacks on other countries. If there is any inkling that they could have a weapon of mass destruction or is engaging in any acts to do inhumane dehumanizing things to their own people, then that country deserves attack. Its the right thing to do. You know?
I find it very interesting, Sharkbait, that you criticized Bernie and Hillary for "cannibalizing" each other but have not even commented on the republicans doing the same, from Bush vs. Trump and Cruz vs. Rubio, I think.
But it's predictable that republicans would use the candidates they're supporting as sources, despite the candidates lying, misinforming, or fear mongering. I can't take any criticism on Obama from them seriously because they're likely just lies. It's sad how these candidates have to resort to lying and attacking Obama for support and cheers.
Because there is less out there on Republican candidates cannibalizing each other. Cruz cannabolized himself with not looking into the legality of him runing for president. Otherwise theres not been any case. Though Rubio seems under attack from other Republicans, he is more focused on Hillary anyway.
No one is saying they shoudn't be vigilant. However, is there any reason to think that the US is being incompetent or has otherwise neglected security on this from? Maybe I am mistaken but as far as I understand it is not the military that stops terrorist plots at the US but rather intelligence agencies which are already pretty huge organizations. Has sanders suggested being lax on security? That doesn't seem right. If anything it sounds like political suicide. At most I think he suggests a less intrusive approach to international affairs but that is something dramatically different from being lax...
Yes Mr Sanders is lax on security "He believes in a strong defense system for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges.Bernie believes that military intervention should be a last resort, not a first resort, and that a bloated defense budget represents an improper prioritization of defense issues at a time when the country is plagued by pressing domestic challenges."
Terrible budget proposals, focus on the WRONG group of proud men and women in our military. What about the Navy, Army, Air Force, and the Marines?!
" Bernie voted against the first Gulf War and vocally opposed and voted against the 2003 invasion of Iraq."
Just plain terrible. We'd be bombed to kingdom come if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Multiple American landmarks would be destroyed, the country would be in chaos.
"Bernie has not ruled out U.S. military action against ISIS or the so-called “Islamic State,” but only in a role supporting — not replacing — regional armies and militias already combating ISIS."
Bad strategy bad bad bad. Working with regional armies and militias is never successful. Our proud servicemen and women would be killed in action. And his lax drone strategy wouldnt do anyone any favors either.
(All quotes from "feelthebern.org" (Guess hes trying to appeal to young folks with that icky name)
A smart president would increase the military to thwart threads abroad for his first term then on his second term, with a powerful military built up, focus on enhancing the way of life of people in the country. Let's not forget that Americans are already part of the most blessed people in the world. Even the poor here are richer than the poor elsewhere. (And everyone wins in Rubio's tax plan so even in the years of enhancing the military, our country would be on the rise from Obama's rock bottom).
Mirrors. didnt I say this also. We're on the same wavelength.
